Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Israel's Flag Is Not Mine September 1949

By Alfred M. Lilienthal


My late husban, a Palestinian who died last year, was fond of
Alfred Lilienthal and owned most every book he wrote. I found
this on the Internet yesterday and decided to share it with
my readers.


Dear Mother:

I brought you my hurts and troubles when both they and I were little: in that same spirit I bring them to you today.

Only last year, a new white flag with single blue six-pointed star was hoisted to a mast many thousands of miles away on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This flag of Israel is the symbol of a new nationalist state, with its own government, army, foreign policy, language, national anthem and oath of allegiance.

And this new flag has brought every one of us five million American citizens of the ancient faith of Judah to a parting in the road.

Judaism, I have felt, was a religious faith which knew no national boundaries, to which a loyal citizen of any country could adhere.

By contrast, Zionism was and is a nationalist movement organized to reconstitute Jews as a nation with a separate homeland. Now that such a state exists, what am I? Am I still only an American who believes in Judaism? Or am I—as extreme Zionists and anti-Semites alike argue—a backsliding member of an Oriental tribe whose loyalty belongs to that group?

Let us start, Mother, with how I feel about this new State of Israel. I wish it well. I hope that several hundred thousand suffering displaced persons will find in it a happy home. I hope it will prosper as a center of democracy in the Middle East. But when its flag was first raised on May 14, 1948, I had no impulse to dance in the street with hysterical joy, as did so many in New York and London. For I was born and remain an American. I have no ties with, no longings for, and feel no responsibilities to Israel. And I believe that the future happiness of the Jews in America depends on their complete integration as citizens of this—our true—country.

I am sure that if we Jews as a group are persuaded to divide that love which people normally give to their native land, it can lead only to disaster.

The Irish? They are a nation and Judaism is a religion. Irishmen here have left Ireland only in recent generations. The Jews left Palestine in Roman times, and have come here from every European country.

My one and only homeland is America. I am proud of my belief in the age-old Judaic concept of one God in Heaven and one Humanity here below. But my faith does not pull me into a feeling of narrowly tribal kinship with all others who worship God in this way. Whenever I read of Americans singing the Hatikvah, Israel's national anthem, or see youth groups raising Israel's flag beside the Stars and Stripes. I am outraged. For Israel's flag and anthem are symbols of a foreign state; ,they are not mine.

The most powerful weapon which Zionism is using on Americans of Jewish faith is its outward cloak of humanitarianism. The argument runs that Israel was set up primarily as a haven for the persecuted, the homeless, so why should we be critical?

Mother, the truth is that Israel was not created primarily for displaced persons. Instead, Article 3 of its proposed constitution proclaims it to be "the national home of the Jewish people." Meaning, Mother, you and me! As early as 1917 Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Israel's first president, was proclaiming: "We have never based the Zionist Movement on Jewish suffering in Russia or any other land. These sufferings have never been the mainspring of Zionism."

Rabbi Abba H. Silver, a recent head of the American Zionists, declared: "We must stand foursquare on the proposition that Zionism is not an immigration or a refugee movement, but a movement to rebuild the Jewish State for the Jewish nation in the land of Israel."

And what is the attitude of Israel toward those who adhere to the faith of Judaism but are citizens of other countries? Our "nationality" they insist is Jewish, no matter under what flags we were born; and, since we are not in Israel, we live "in the Diaspora," which is to say in exile. And their plans for us?

"We must," explained Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, in his first speech after the Israeli elections, "save the remnants of Israel in the Diaspora. We must also save their possessions. Without these two things, we shall not build this country."

So the vast Zionist propaganda machine strives to cement national ties between Israel and all persons of Jewish faith. And sending money to Israel is only a small part of our supposed obligation. The deeper objectives are given by Dr. Margoshes, an executive of the American Section of the Jewish Agency, as being:

" - to Zionize world Jewry. . .to establish Zionist hegemony over the developing Jewish communities throughout the world."

Daniel Frisch, newly elected president of the American Zionists, feels that "the American Jewish community will soon arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the all-day school plus a chain of summer camps is the only solution to the problem," and that "we ought to be able to send to Israel American—bred young people who want to live as Jews minus the hyphen under the smiling skies of the reborn Israel. Our task has not ended with the birth of the Jewish State. It has but begun."

Have these misguided zealots forgotten the indignation which was aroused in America In the '30's, when the Bundists tried to tell Americans of German ancestry that they owed loyalty to Germany, and set up in America youth camps dedicated to German culture?

Today we see Zionists boasting of "Jewish" political strength, Zionist picket lines around British consulates, Zionists demonstrating against Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin when he arrives here to sign the Atlantic Pact, New York stores plastered with posters screaming "Do Not Buy British. Made Goods."

Are these people acting as Americans? Europe's recovery through the Marshall Plan is the keystone of our bipartisan foreign policy, which the Communists are trying to sabotage. Any boycott of British goods, organized or unorganized, helps this destruction. Now I know these Zionists were not consciously trying to tear down American foreign policy, but their actions were the inevitable result of living under segregation is not solely the fault of the other guy. Part of the responsibility is on our shoulders. True, the Jew is sometimes segregated by Christians. But it is also true that the Jew sometimes sets himself apart from Christians.

We have moved out of the ghetto, but sometimes scars of the long imprisonment remain. This is why many Jews even today feel at home only with other Jews. Many carry their Jewishness on their sleeves and are extremely self-conscious and sensitive to their separateness.

ALL OF THIS I understand: most of it I forgive. After all, six million Jews were wiped out by Hitler and anti-Semitism does exist, even in America. Why should each of us not be at least a little sensitive? This I think most non-Jews understand. But when anyone criticizes, however mildly, either Zionism, the State of Israel or the hysterical behavior of some groups of Jews. we have no right to shout "anti-Semitism!"

In any religion one can find a small group of fanatics who hate those of other faiths. Such fanatics are not numerous or important. It is Semitism—the constant effort of some Jews to assert themselves as Jews—and not their religion of Judaism which feeds anti-Semitism.

'No one knows better than you, Mother, that I, too. suffered humiliation from being a Jew. I have felt the arrows of discrimination. In my deep hurt I have cried out. But the discipline of two nationalisms. Were Hitler alive today, how he would laugh!

The plain fact is that we Jews are not a race and we should not let the Zionists persuade us that we are. Proof to the contrary lies in Palestine, plain for all to see. You had my letter, Mother, from my Army furlough there. I was second to none in my enthusiasm for. what my co-religionists had done—for a desert brought to bloom, for clean new cities rising out of age-old sand dunes. All of these wonders had come to pass while only a few fanatics talked of statehood. One evening I went to see a performance ,of an opera in Jerusalem. In that theater lobby you could distinguish almost at a glance the Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazic Jew from Poland, the Spanish-speaking Sephardic Jew from North Africa or Turkey, the German Jew, Jews from a score of countries all differing in dress, language, manners and mental attitudes. I had visual proof of the arguments of anthropologists. who laugh at the notion of a distinct Jewish race.

Anyone who tells me those foreign Jews are exclusively my people that I should be closer to them than to Bob McCormick, the kid on the block with whom I used to play ball: or to Nick Galbraith, who roomed next to me at Cornell; or Dave Du Vivier with whom I studied in law school—that man is talking dangerous nonsense. I have also learned, Mother, that when something. goes wrong in my relations with non-Jews. I avoid the habit of thinking that it happened just because I am a Jew. Such self-pity is comforting, but it is usually wrong and therefore dangerous.

There is today a deep split among Americans of the Jewish faith. The Zionists are the more vocal; they have more organized political power. But they do not speak for all of us, and I hope not for most. On the other side there is, for instance, the American Council for Judaism, which insists that the nationalism of Israel must be confined to the boundaries of that state. There are also countless other Jews without any affiliation who revere Judaism as a religion and scorn to degrade it into a cheap racial nationalism which competes with their Americanism.

But when we protest the right of the Zionists to speak as "American Jewry" on the question of Palestine, we are told that Jews should not be disunited, must not fight among themselves on Palestine or any other issue. And if we still speak out against what we feel is a dangerous trend, we find ourselves reviled and ostracized as traitors. Coercion, often economic, frequently silences the freethinker.

But why should Americans of Jewish faith be any more united on questions of American foreign policy than are Presbyterians, Baptists or Methodists?

Have we forgotten the words of Woodrow Wilson in 1915 when he warned all Americans: "You cannot become true Americans if you think of yourselves in groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. And a man who goes among you to trade on your nationality is not worthy to live under the Stars and Stripes."

Politicians of both parties who in the last election played to "the Jewish vote"' in connection with Israel will do well to reread those words.

The answer to bigotry and anti-Semitism does not lie in fanatical Jewish nationalism. Of course the blowing-up of the King David Hotel, the hanging of the two British sergeants, the assassination of Bernadotte, the massacre of Arab women and children at Dier Yasin were all acts of tiny groups. But they have weakened the moral and spiritual stature of the world's oldest religion. Israel's terrorist Beigin and Hollywood's Ben Hecht, who encouraged such lawlessness by saying, "Every time you let go with your guns at the British betrayers of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts!" such people are doing the Jews more harm than any words which Goebbels spoke.

There was no holiday in my heart, nor in that of the late Rabbi J. L Magnes, president of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who said sadly following that Hecht statement: "We had always thought that Zionism would diminish anti-Semitism in the world. We are witness to the opposite."

All too many Christians have supported Zionism because they felt that Jews, having been persecuted, should now have what they want whether it is good or bad for them. Christian leaders can help us greatly. But Christian sympathy for Jews should be measured not in terms of support for Jewish nationalism in distant Israel but in accepting us as friends, neighbors and first-class citizens of this our country. That is true liberal Christianity. And also, Mother, good Judaism, that fine old faith which you taught me as a little child.

1949 The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. Pleasantville New York

Reprinted from the September, 1949 issue of The Reader's Digest.

Labels: , ,

Exile From Palestine

I wrote the following to the author of an article in
Counterpunch, Eliza Ernshire. Her answer follows mine.
I posted her article on this BLOG on January 28th.


January 28, 2007

Dear Eliza,
I read your article, emailed to me by my son, and
wondered how many times my heart can break, over and
over and over.

I too left the West Bank, in May of 2006, leaving
behind a small house I had inherited from my husband
who died in February of 2006. I had thought I would
return in a few months. Now I'm wary of even trying
as I will spend the money to travel from the US to
Tel Aviv and then be denied a VISA.

I've sought the help of a US Congressman who promised
to try to obtain a VISA for me from the State
Department. My latest contact with his office was not
reassuring. After months they've had no reply from the
the State Department. The Israeli tale continues to
wag the American dog.

Were you connected with the Friend's Schools in Ramallah?

Peace and best wishes to you,
Bronwin

January 31, 2007

Dear Bronwin,
Thanks for your response to my position.
It is very trying as you suggest.
I hope to God you have success in your attempts...
And yes! I taught english and history at the
Boys Friends School since sep. last year!
All the best
Eliza.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, January 29, 2007

From: My son
Subject: Emma Thompson bids for Palestinian Rights
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:53:28 +0000

----------------------------------------------------------


Broadbased coalition in support of an end to Israeli occupation set for launch


Record-breaking actor Emma Thompson revealed today why she is helping to make political history by supporting Britain's first broad-based alliance for a just peace in the Middle East. Ms Thompson earned her Oscars for best actress in Howard's End and for best-adapted screenplay for adapting Jane Austen's novel Sense and Sensibility. The only person ever to have won film Oscars for acting and writing is backing a new historic drive for a just settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

The ENOUGH! coalition, representing over three million people in charities, trade unions, faith and campaign groups has come together to mark this year's 40th anniversary of the Israeli military occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The launch will come only days after a report, funded by the British government, warned that Israel's separation wall is trapping 250,000 Palestinians. The report on Israel's separation wall was produced by the Israeli planning and rights organisation Bimkom. The report says the wall is cutting off Palestinians from employment, education, healthcare needs, undermining social and family life and isolating farmers from markets.

Ms Thompson said: "This report cites the devastating effects on Palestinians' health and livelihoods of Israel's separation wall. It shows the vital need for our ministers to make fresh moves for a just peace. It is high time the UK government matched its rhetoric with action which can save Palestinians and Israelis from another 40 years' conflict."



ENOUGH will be launched with a news conference at 11.00 am next Tuesday (30 January) in the Wilson Room at Portcullis House, Victoria Embankment, London SW1A 2LW.

Supporters include actor -Miriam Margolyes, now appearing in London's West End hit musical Wicked - and other celebrities such as Richard Wilson, Stephen Fry, Angus Deayton, Zoe Wanamaker and film director Mike Leigh.

Other ENOUGH! backers include the MP Clare Short, former UK international development secretary, comedian Mark Steel, playwright Caryl Churchill, poets Benjamin Zephaniah and Adrian Mitchell, artists John Keane and Laila Shawa, and novelist Ahdaf Soueif.

Ms Margolyes will introduce the news conference, where the speakers will be: Palestinian farmer Sharif Omar, whose livelihood has been hit by Israel's separation wall, Mona El-Farra, a Gaza doctor treating children traumatised by occupation, Professor Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian delegate to Britain and former Israeli pilot Yonatan Shapira, who refused to fly missions over the occupied territories.

The news conference precedes a public launch rally later the same day. Tony Benn, the ex-UK cabinet minister, will address the rally, along with award-winning Gaza cameraman Zakaria Abu Harbid, Yonatan Shapira, Sharif Omar, Mona El-Farra and Professor Hassassian. It will take place at 7.00 pm on Tuesday, 30 January at Friends House, 173 Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ.

ENOUGH! coalition will organise throughout the year: In April - local events across the country with a special focus on Jerusalem; 9th June - a national demonstration and concert in London on Saturday 9 June, to mark the 6 Day war 28th November - a lobby of the British parliament to mark the United Nations International Day for Palestine.

The coalition comprises: Amicus, Amos Trust, BFAWU, Britain-Pal estine All Party Parliamentary Group, Britain Palestine Twinning Network, CAABU, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Friends of Birzeit University, GMB, Green Party, ICAHD UK, Interpal, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Socialist Group, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Muslim Association of Britain, Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, NUJ, NUS Black Students Campaign, Open Bethlehem, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Palestinian Forum in Britain, Palestinian Return Centre, Pax Christi, PCS, Quaker Peace and Social Witness, T&G, Trade Union Friends of Palestine, UNISON, War on Want, Welfare Association.

Labels: , , ,

American Attempt to Understand Palestine and Israel
Email Exchange With A Former Co-Worker
January 27,2007
As some of you know and others don't, I haven't been
> > on-line since early Nov., but thankfully, now I am
> > on-line with much better and faster equipment. I'm
> > looking forward to heraing from all of you in this
> > new year of 2007.
> >
> > Ellie

January 27, 2007

Hi Ellie,
>
> It's nice to hear from you. What are you doing these
> days.?
>
> I was out of the country from November of '06 through
> May of '07. My husband who retired to the West Bank
> about ten years ago was dying and I went to take care
> of him. He was a research chemist in the US for thirty
> years developing products for the ceramics
> industry. He breathed silica and died a horrendous
> death by silicosis. He died in February and I stayed
> on for three more months because I had sublet my
> place here. I inherited a small house and some land
> from him on the West Bank.
>
> It was a very interesting experience. I started a BLOG
> last March. If you want to read about my experience go
> to: www.lettersfrompalestine.blogspot.com . Go to
> archives and click on March to start from the
> beginning. Since I've returned I'm working so hard I
> don't have any time to do anything except post
> articles and emails I receive. I'm working as a
> marketing consultant now and I'm getting too old for
> all this hard work.
>
> Regards,
> -Bronwin
>
>
>




Subject: Re: New e-mail address
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:00:24 +0000
Bronwin,
My life is very boring compared to yours..........nothing exciting other than doing some traveling since my husband retired in March/06. We went to Chicago to visit friends, Jim's Army Reunion in the Smokey Mountains and vacationed at Deep Creek ,Md with our daughters this past summer. I'm not working, but getting antsy to delve back into something.....

I must say that I'm really enjoying your "blog" about your visit to the West Bank. My deepest condolences to you and your sons on the death of Sami. How noble of you to care for him in at the end of his journey on earth...........

Bronwin........you have a real talent for writing and I think you have missed your true "calling" in life. I think there could be a book from your personal experiences in the West Bank and also what you experienced as the estranged wife caring for her husband. You are an awesome story-teller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You should send some samples to an editor.

I know you have a profound empathy for the plight of the palestinians and getting your message across here in the states in book form would be awesome.

Last night , I was watching c-span and President Carter was a speaker at Brandeis University explaining his new book about the Palestine problem and what he feels needs to be done to bring peace to the Middle east. After he left, Alan Dershowitz[noted attorney and professor at Harvard] spoke as a rebuttal speaker. It was very interesting and you should try to see it and read Carter's book. I'm still so confused over the issue, because they both make such logical arguments for their sides.

Do you think there will ever be a solution to the problem?

Great to hear from you and continue your writing,


Ellie


January 29, 2008

Dear Ellie,
What a wonderful email you've sent me. Such nice
compliments! I've wanted to be a writer since I first
learned to read. When I was young no one encouraged
me. Then my son inherited whatever talent I have plus
more and he works as a reporter and editor for the
Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs. You can
find it in Borders or Barnes and Nobles. If you want
to understand the Palestinian - Israeli situation that
journal is a great place to start. What confuses most
Americans are the lies told by the American Jews. Our
government and media back them in all of it. I don't
even think many of them are consciously lying. They're
repeating what their rabbis have told them. I believed
much of it til I went to Palestine via Israel for the
first time in '79. What an eyeopener that was!

After Sami died last February I stayed on in the little
house I inherited from him in a beautiful village and
spent my time writing. I enjoyed it so much I decided
to return for at least six months out of each year so
I could sit in my quiet house in the village and write.
Now the Israelis have ceased letting Americans enter
the West Bank except for two to three days at a time.
The Quakers have had a school in Ramallah for over 100
years and the Israelis are destroying that by not
allowing the teachers and admiinistrators to return.
They are most likely preparing for another land grab.
They've already stolen nearly 700 acres of the family's
land.

Years ago Moe and I had a Mexican divorce arranged by
a friend of his. I had no one representing me and have
been told over the years that the divorce is bogus.
So I'm technically a widow. I spoke a few months ago
with a Mexican attorney who assured me the divorce is
not even legal in Mexico.

Many of my recent posts on my BLOG concern President
Carter's book and the responses to it.

Do you ever see any of the gang from the Visitor's
Center?

All the best,
-Bronwin

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, January 28, 2007

I sent the following email to the author of an article that follows it published this weekend in Counterpunch.
-Bronwin

Dear Eliza,
I read your article, emailed to me by my son, and wondered how many times my heart can break, over and over and over. I too left the West Bank, in May of 2006, leaving behind a small house I had inherited from my husband who died in February of 2006. I had thought I would return in a few months. Now I'm wary of even trying as I will spend the money to travel from the US to Tel Aviv and then be denied a VISA. I've sought the help of a US Congressman who promisedto try to obtain a VISA for me from the StateDepartment. My latest contact with his office was not reassuring. After months they've had no reply from the State Department. So the Israeli tail continues to wag the American dog.

I've posted stories of my Palestinian experience on a BLOG: www.lettersfrompalestine.blogspot.com . Were you connected with the Friend's Schools in Ramallah?

Peace and best wishes to you,
Bronwin Peel

Labels: , , , ,

Exiled from Palestine
Weekend EditionJanuary 27 / 28, 2007
Counterpunch
"I Keep Hoping"
Exiled from Palestine
By ELIZA ERNSHIRE
Amman.
It is a terrible feeling to be in exile. Even from a country I have only called home for 9 months. As I sit here in Amman many questions fill my mind, not least among them the question of how all the Palestinians exiled for life manage to accept this injustice. I have come across enough of these cases in the last week to make me try and be more realistic about my own frustrations. The first example was at the Bridge crossing where I sat with an older Palestinian man who very sympathetically asked me if I was being turned back. I said yes and launched into my tale of sorrow: how everything I owned was in my home in Ramallah, how I had work and friendships and projects half-started, how I had a cat who is only six months old waiting for me. He kindly comforted me and then told me his tale. His family was in Hebron. His wife, children and land. He had been turned away six times in the past two months. His wife bore his fifth child in October and he has not yet seen his son. He shrugged his shoulders and said "I hope. I keep hoping and that is why I am here again."For the next two hours he walked up and down the waiting area, chatting at times to the security officers, never revealing the terrible stress he was feeling. At times he came up to me to ask how things were going and in shame at my earlier complaints I kept assuring him that I was fine. Yes,they were sending me back, but that was only going to break my heart and not that of a loving family
I was glad to see that he got into Palestine as I was being packed into the bus returning to Jordan.On the bus was a young 16-year old boy who was also being sent back. He came to Jordan to visit his sister who is married in Amman. His mother and father are in Bethlehem and he was denied entry to return to them. Dear boy! He also shrugged his shoulders and said he would just try again the next day.
Today as I caught a taxi to the Australian Embassy the driver asked me where I had learnt to understand a little Arabic. I said Palestine. He said "welcome!" and then told me he was from Bethlehem "near the church" and he used his hands to show the church spire. "I am from that part of Bethlehem" he said. The way he spoke made me think he had left there a week ago. I asked him how long since he had been home."I have never seen Palestine", he answered.As we wound our way through the traffic we discussed Bethlehem and I assured him how beautiful his home was. He seemed very pleased to hear this and I could not bear to tell him how scarred his city was in reality by the Wall. When we arrived I said I hoped he would one day see Palestine and he said "insha'allah".I found myself repeating this phrase as well as I walked home. Insha'allah I will also be allowed to see my home again...one day.
While I was away the army invaded Ramallah. I watched the TV coverage in horror as army jeeps roamed around the center of the city shooting and causing chaos and death. As army bulldozers crushed cars and fruit stores in the market where I always bought my fruit and vegetables. I wept as I saw familiar faces flashing past the camera, shouting and crying in disbelief.
I cannot explain my feeling of guilt because I was not there suffering with the people who had become my brothers and sisters. Because I could get out and they couldn't. Yesterday I read an article in Maan News that named Khalil the coffee vendor of Al Minara as one of those innocent bystanders killed in that invasion. How many times had I stood by his store and enjoyed a street coffee and his hospitality. In the course of my stay in Ramallah I had come to know him quite well. There was the time his son was hit by a car and I would sit with his family in the hospital passing the time. There was the time when the Israeli army invaded Ramallah in May 2006 and I was standing shell-shocked in the middle of Al Minara not sure what was happening and Khalil rushed up to me and grabbed my arm and dragged me to a garbage bin behind which we both sheltered as bullets flew in all directions.
And now he is killed.
I am sorry, Khalil! For you and your dear son who was so loved by you. For your city whose pain and joy and life I cannot share in anymore.
I imagine as time passes I will get used to the fact that I am not going back. Get used to waiting for some future peace deal that will allow the Allenby Border to be monitored by Palestinian forces.Then it will be an exciting time as all the thousands of people in my position make a journey back to the country that is their home or in which they were always welcomed, to celebrate.
To lay wreathes for those friends who didn't live to see the freedom of their homeland, to collect belongings dust-covered, clothes years out of fashion Insha'allah we will live to see to see this day.
Eliza Ernshire can be reached at http://us.f603.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=eliza_ernshire@yahoo.co.uk
Exiled from Palestine
By ELIZA ERNSHIRE

Amman.
It is a terrible feeling to be in exile. Even from a country I have only called home for 9 months. As I sit here in Amman many questions fill my mind, not least among them the question of how all the Palestinians exiled for life manage to accept this injustice. I have come across enough of these cases in the last week to make me try and be more realistic about my own frustrations. The first example was at the Bridge crossing where I sat with an older Palestinian man who very sympathetically asked me if I was being turned back. I said yes and launched into my tale of sorrow: how everything I owned was in my home in Ramallah, how I had work and friendships and projects half-started, how I had a cat who is only six months old waiting for me. He kindly comforted me and then told me his tale. His family was in Hebron. His wife, children and land. He had been turned away six times in the past two months. His wife bore his fifth child in October and he has not yet seen his son. He shrugged his shoulders and said "I hope. I keep hoping and that is why I am here again."For the next two hours he walked up and down the waiting area, chatting at times to the security officers, never revealing the terrible stress he was feeling. At times he came up to me to ask how things were going and in shame at my earlier complaints I kept assuring him that I was fine. Yes,they were sending me back, but that was only going to break my heart and not that of a loving family
I was glad to see that he got into Palestine as I was being packed into the bus returning to Jordan.On the bus was a young 16-year old boy who was also being sent back. He came to Jordan to visit his sister who is married in Amman. His mother and father are in Bethlehem and he was denied entry to return to them. Dear boy! He also shrugged his shoulders and said he would just try again the next day.
Today as I caught a taxi to the Australian Embassy the driver asked me where I had learnt to understand a little Arabic. I said Palestine. He said "welcome!" and then told me he was from Bethlehem "near the church" and he used his hands to show the church spire. "I am from that part of Bethlehem" he said. The way he spoke made me think he had left there a week ago. I asked him how long since he had been home."I have never seen Palestine", he answered.As we wound our way through the traffic we discussed Bethlehem and I assured him how beautiful his home was. He seemed very pleased to hear this and I could not bear to tell him how scarred his city was in reality by the Wall. When we arrived I said I hoped he would one day see Palestine and he said "insha'allah".I found myself repeating this phrase as well as I walked home. Insha'allah I will also be allowed to see my home again...one day.
While I was away the army invaded Ramallah. I watched the TV coverage in horror as army jeeps roamed around the center of the city shooting and causing chaos and death. As army bulldozers crushed cars and fruit stores in the market where I always bought my fruit and vegetables. I wept as I saw familiar faces flashing past the camera, shouting and crying in disbelief.
I cannot explain my feeling of guilt because I was not there suffering with the people who had become my brothers and sisters. Because I could get out and they couldn't. Yesterday I read an article in Maan News that named Khalil the coffee vendor of Al Minara as one of those innocent bystanders killed in that invasion. How many times had I stood by his store and enjoyed a street coffee and his hospitality. In the course of my stay in Ramallah I had come to know him quite well. There was the time his son was hit by a car and I would sit with his family in the hospital passing the time. There was the time when the Israeli army invaded Ramallah in May 2006 and I was standing shell-shocked in the middle of Al Minara not sure what was happening and Khalil rushed up to me and grabbed my arm and dragged me to a garbage bin behind which we both sheltered as bullets flew in all directions.
And now he is killed.
I am sorry, Khalil! For you and your dear son who was so loved by you. For your city whose pain and joy and life I cannot share in anymore.
I imagine as time passes I will get used to the fact that I am not going back. Get used to waiting for some future peace deal that will allow the Allenby Border to be monitored by Palestinian forces.Then it will be an exciting time as all the thousands of people in my position make a journey back to the country that is their home or in which they were always welcomed, to celebrate.
To lay wreathes for those friends who didn't live to see the freedom of their homeland, to collect belongings dust-covered, clothes years out of fashion Insha'allah we will live to see to see this day.
Eliza Ernshire can be reached at http://us.f603.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=eliza_ernshire@yahoo.co.uk

Labels: , , , , ,

Vigilante Justice in Israel

The author is an American Friend of Mine who lives in Israel. She's asked me not to use her name as she
fears retaliation from the Israelis. It was written as a letter to the Editor of Harrtez, an Israeli English language newspaper.



Your recent article on the situation in the Negev (Wild West in the Negev, 1/21) largely approving the Israeli farmer who shot and killed a Bedouin interloper, and a following item describing proposed legislation to justify such vigilante justice describes a situation that is in many ways the mirror image of the problems faced by Palestinians living near and facing the depredations of many Israeli settlers. You do not say if the Bedouin intruders are breaking the windows of the Israeli shops and cars, shooting into their houses, screaming obscenities at their wives and children or writing them on their walls, or harassing their children on the way to school, but otherwise it sounds very similar to what Palestinians regularly face from their settler neighbors.
There are differences of course. The State of Israel has gone beyond marginalization of the Bedouin, it has made them non persons, eligible for few or no services, legal status or ability to feed themselves, while the settlers are subsidized, protected, given the best of the very good that Israel can provide. You have only to visualize the tattered Bedouin homes that you have seen (a shame in itself in a country as wealthy as Israel) and compare them with the red roofed villas with pools, lawns, community centers and above all water that are provided at little cost to the settlers. It would seem that the settlers could afford to buy olives and other produce from their neighbors rather than stealing them if in fact they wanted to be neighbors rather than predators.
Are you going to suggest that legislation is passed so that Palestinians also have the right to shoot to kill any trespassers they find on their property, especially if the trespassers are destroying property or stealing produce? Or is it true that Israeli justice, whether in the Territories or Israel, protects only the Israeli and never the others? The recent high speed chase, for example, where a suspected Bedouin indefensibly shot a policeman, - when did we ever hear of police or soldiers chasing or prosecuting or even adequately investigating settler crimes against their neighbors? A recent report by an Israel human rights group has shown spectacular inattention to the needs of those who suffer from attacks by the settlers. The State is entering on dangerous waters in a process that can reveal a great deal about the underside of democracy or justice in Israel. Vigilantism does meets the ethical standards of few Israelis or in fact the world community. Your article seems to approve of â wild west justice. Given the role of your paper, this is especially alarming. Is this now the opinion of the liberal mainstream?

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Free Congressional Trips to Israel Costly
from a peace activist friend of mine



Date:
Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:37:32 -0500
From:
APeace activist friend of mine.
Subject:
The hidden cost of free congressional trips to Israel - AIPAC Strikes Again!!!
To:
The hidden cost of free congressional trips to IsraelBranded as 'educational’, these trips offer Israeli propagandists anopportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story.by Senator Jim Abourezk Christian Science Monitor26 January 2007http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0126/p09s01-coop.htmlSIOUX FALL, S.D. - Democrats in Congress have moved quickly - and commendably - to strengthen ethics rules. But truly groundbreaking reformwas prevented, in part, because of the efforts of the pro-Israel lobby topreserve one of its most critical functions: taking members of Congress onfree "educational" trips to Israel .The pro-Israel lobby does most of its work without publicity. But everymember of Congress and every would-be candidate for Congress comes toquickly understand a basic lesson. Money needed to run for office can comewith great ease from supporters of Israel , provided that the candidate makescertain promises, in writing, to vote favorably on issues consideredimportant to Israel . What drives much of congressional support for Israel is fear - fear that the pro-Israel lobby will either withhold campaigncontributions or give money to one's opponent.In my own experience as a US senator in the 1970s, I saw how the lobby triesto humiliate or embarrass members who do not toe the line.Pro-Israel groups worked vigorously to ensure that the new reforms wouldallow them to keep hosting members of Congress on trips to Israel . Accordingto the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper, congressional filings show Israel asthe top foreign destination for privately sponsored trips. Nearly 10 percentof overseas congressional trips taken between 2000 and 2005 were to Israel .Most are paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation, a sisterorganization of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the majorpro-Israel lobby group.New rules require all trips to be pre-approved by the House EthicsCommittee, but Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts says this setup willguarantee that tours of Israel continue. Ron Kampeas of the JewishTelegraphic Agency reported consensus among Jewish groups that "the newlegislation would be an inconvenience, but wouldn't seriously hamper thetrips to Israel that are considered a critical component of congressionalsupport for Israel ."These trips are defended as "educational." In reality, as I know from mymany colleagues in the House and Senate who participated in them, they offerIsraeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to onlytheir side of the story. The Israeli narrative of how the nation wascreated, and Israeli justifications for its brutal policies omit importanttruths about the Israeli takeover and occupation of the Palestinianterritories.What the pro-Israel lobby reaps for its investment in these tours iscongressional support for Israeli desires. For years, Israel has relied onbillions of dollars in US taxpayer money. Shutting off this governmentfunding would seriously impair Israel 's harsh occupation.One wonders what policies Congress might support toward Israel and thePalestinians absent the distorting influence of these Israel trips - or ifmore members toured Palestinian lands. America sent troops to Europe toprevent the killing of civilians in the former Yugoslavia . But when it comesto flagrant human rights violations committed by Israel , the US sends moremoney and shields Israel from criticism.Congress regularly passes resolutions lauding Israel , even when its actionsare deplorable, providing it political cover. Meanwhile, polls suggest mostAmericans want the Bush administration to steer a middle course in workingfor peace between Israelis and the Palestinians.Consider, too, how the Israel lobby twists US foreign policy into adangerous double standard regarding nuclear issues. The US rattles itssabers at Iran for its nuclear energy ambitions - and alleged pursuit ofnuclear arms - while remaining silent about Israel 's nuclear-weaponsarsenal.Members of Congress may not be aware just how damaging their automaticsupport for Israel is to America 's interest. At a minimum, US policiestoward Israel have cost it valuable allies in the Middle East and otherparts of the Muslim world.If Congress is serious about ethics reform, it should not protect the Israellobby from the consequences. A totally taxpayer-funded travel budget formembers to take foreign fact-finding trips, with authorization to be made bycommittee heads, would be an important first step toward a foreign policythat genuinely serves America .____________________________________________________Jim Abourezk is a former Democratic senator from South Dakota .

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, January 26, 2007

The Economist on the occupation
An email from my son
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:49:02 +0000
It's the little things that make an occupation
The EconomistPosted on Thursday January 18, 2007
Those seemingly minor inconveniences that make life hellish
DURING 2006, according to B’tselem, an Israeli human-rights group, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, almost half of them innocent bystanders, among them 141 children. In the same period, Palestinians killed 17 Israeli civilians and six soldiers. It is such figures, as well as events like shellings, house demolitions, arrest raids and land expropriations, that make the headlines in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What rarely get into the media but make up the staple of Palestinian daily conversation are the countless little restrictions that slow down most people’s lives, strangle the economy and provide constant fuel for extremists.
Arbitrariness is one of the most crippling features of these rules. No one can predict how a trip will go. Many of the main West Bank roads, for the sake of the security of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, are off-limits to Palestinian vehicles—only one road connecting the north and south West Bank, for instance, is open to them—and these restrictions change frequently. So do the rules on who can pass the checkpoints that in effect divide the West Bank into a number of semi-connected regions (see map).
A new order due to come into force this week would have banned most West Bankers from riding in cars with Israeli licence plates, and thus from getting lifts from friends and relatives among the 1.6m Palestinians who live as citizens in Israel, as well as from aid workers, journalists and other foreigners. The army decided to suspend the order after protests from human-rights groups that it would give soldiers enormous arbitrary powers—but it has not revoked it.
Large parts of the population of the northern West Bank, and of individual cities like Nablus and Jericho , simply cannot leave their home areas without special permits, which are not always forthcoming. If they can travel, how long they spend waiting at checkpoints, from minutes to hours, depends on the time of day and the humour of the soldiers. Several checkpoints may punctuate a journey between cities that would otherwise be less than an hour’s drive apart. These checkpoints move and shift every day, and army jeeps add to the unpredictability and annoyance by stopping and creating ad hoc mobile checkpoints at various spots.
According to the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the number of such obstacles had increased to 534 by mid-December from 376 in August 2005, when OCHA and the Israeli army completed a joint count. When Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, agreed last month to ease restrictions at a few of these checkpoints as a concession to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, human-rights people reported that not only did many of the checkpoints go on working as before; near the ones that had eased up, mobile ones were now operating instead, causing worse disruption and pain.
It is sometimes hard to fathom the logic of the checkpoint regime. One route from Ramallah, the Palestinian administrative capital, to Jerusalem , involves a careful inspection of documents, while on another the soldiers—if they are at their posts—just glance at cars’ occupants to see if they look Arab. Israeli law strictly forbids Israeli citizens from visiting the main Palestinian cities, but they can drive straight into Ramallah and Hebron without being challenged, while other cities, such as Jericho and Nablus , remain impermeable. In many places the barrier that Israel is building through the West Bank for security purposes (though in Palestinian eyes to grab more land) is monitored with all the care of an international border, while around Jerusalem the army turns a blind eye to hundreds of people who slip through cracks in the wall as part of their daily commute.
Because of the internal travel restrictions, people who want to move from one Palestinian city to another for work or study must register a change of address to make sure they can stay there. But they cannot. Israel ’s population registry, which issues Palestinian identity cards as well as Israeli ones, has issued almost no new Palestinian cards since the start of the second intifada in 2000. And that means no address changes either. This also makes it virtually impossible for Palestinians from abroad to get residency in the occupied territories, which are supposed to be their future state, never mind in Israel .
No-through-roads galore
On top of that, in the past year several thousand Palestinians who had applied for residency in the West Bank and were living there on renewable six-month visitor permits have become illegal residents too, liable to be stopped and deported at any checkpoint, not because of anything they have done but because Israel has stopped renewing permits since Hamas, the Islamist movement, took control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) a year ago. ( Israel says it is because the PA isn’t handing over the requests.)
Like Israelis, Palestinians who commit a traffic offence on the West Bank ’s highways have to pay the fine at an Israeli post office or a police station. But in the West Bank the only post offices and police stations are on Israeli settlements that most West Bank Palestinians cannot visit without a rare permit. If they do not pay, however, they lose their driving licences the next time the police stop them. They also get a criminal record—which then makes an Israeli entry permit quite impossible.
Some of the regulations stray into the realm of the absurd. A year ago a military order, for no obvious reason, expanded the list of protected wild plants in the West Bank to include za’atar (hyssop), an abundant herb and Palestinian staple. For a while, soldiers at checkpoints confiscated bunches of it from bewildered Palestinians who had merely wanted something to liven up their salads. Lately there have been no reports of za’atar confiscation, but, says Michael Sfard, the legal adviser for Yesh Din, another Israeli human-rights body, the order is still in force. As he tells the story, he cannot help laughing. There is not much else to do.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Subject: Jim Zogby in today's Gulf New on Carter's book

An email from my son
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:16:38 +0000
Carter's observations are well-founded
By James Zogby, Special to Gulf News



Former US president Jimmy Carter has written a little book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - a little book that has created a big storm.

In describing his effort, Carter noted that he set out to accomplish two major objectives: to collect his personal reminiscences and observations based on his early years as a peace negotiator and later as an observer of three Palestinian elections and also to provoke a debate within the US about the issues that must be addressed for there to be a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has, it appears, been somewhat successful in accomplishing these goals.

Carter tells his stories well, presenting them in a delightfully conversational manner. And it has provoked a debate, though not always as thoughtful and serious as Carter might have hoped for or as serious as the topic deserves.

Even before Palestine was released there was a hue and cry from opponents whose objections have focused on two issues:

- The title, which describes the options facing Israel as it pursues its current policies.

- The observation which Carter also makes at the very end of the book, where he notes that while "there are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the US, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from [occupied] Jerusalem dominate our media and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories."

On both counts, the former president's observations are well-founded coming out of his three decade-long experience in dealing with the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

Impact

Knowing the typology of the West Bank and seeing, first hand, the impact of the wall on Palestinian daily life, Carter makes clear that if Israel persists with its current plan, the result will be akin to establishing a non-viable Palestinian Bantustan or worse. It will be like a reservation in which Palestinians are locked into poverty, despair and anger, denied the freedom to grow their economy and even travel easily from place to place.

This is what which Carter aptly refers to as apartheid.

If Carter's depiction of the logical end of Israel's policies has irked his critics, what caused outrage, is his observation that Israel's policies cannot be freely debated in the US. And here, and in the way they have vented their anger, Carter's critics have only served to make his point.

Even before the book appeared, political leaders were pressed to distance themselves from the former president. Major pro-Israeli groups and leaders issued denunciations using extreme and shameful rhetoric in an effort to ridicule and demean Carter.

This, of course, was not intended as part of a debate, but rather as a heavy handed effort to silence discussion of the book and isolate Carter from the mainstream of political discourse.

What emerges from all of this is the sad and inescapable reality that just as Israel demands peace on its terms, defining its non-negotiable "red-lines" and declaring everything else off-limits, it appears that its supporters follow suit, only tolerating political discussion of the conflict on terms they deem acceptable.

As a result, frustration and polarisation grow both in the Middle East and here in the US, as well.

Carter's effort to change this dynamic was a good one. Sales are brisk, but given the refusal of the policy elites to discuss its central observations, the reasoned debate he sought to create will not, it appears, take place any time soon.



Dr James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC.

Monday, January 22, 2007

From: My son
Subject: Carter defends his 'Palestine' book
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:43:00 +0000

Carter defends his 'Palestine' book

The Associated Press
Sunday, January 21, 2007
ATHENS, Georgia
The former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has said that the storm of criticism he has faced for his recent book has not weakened his resolve for fair treatment of Israelis and Palestinians.

"I have been called a liar," Carter said Saturday at a town hall meeting on the second day of a three-day symposium on his presidency at the University of Georgia.

"I have been called an anti-Semite," he said. "I have been called a bigot. I have been called a plagiarist. I have been called a coward. Those kind of accusations, they concern me, but they don't detract from the fact the book is accurate and is needed."

Following the publication of the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," 14 members of an advisory board to his Carter Center resigned in protest. Those former board members and others say the book is unfairly critical of Israel.

"Not one of the critics of my book has contradicted any of the basic premises — that is the horrible persecution and oppression of the Palestinian people and secondly that the formula for finding peace in the Middle East already exists," said Carter, 82.

Carter said he was pleased that the book had stimulated discussion of an issue that had been "omitted from the public consciousness" for at least the last six years.

Also Saturday, Carter, at times emotional, told how he had saved the 1978 Camp David peace talks when it appeared the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, would leave.

Carter said that in the first three days of the talks Sadat and the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, often argued. After about a week, Carter said, Sadat reached a breaking point and packed his bags to return to Egypt — and Carter "knelt down and prayed."

Carter said he then walked to Sadat's cabin. "Sadat and I stood with our noses almost touching," he said, "and I told him that he had betrayed me and betrayed his own people and if he left our friendship was severed forever and the relationship between the United States and Egypt would suffer."

Sadat agreed to stay, and the Camp David accords were signed after 12 days of negotiations.

The three-day conference was arranged to mark the 30th anniversary of Carter's 1977 inauguration.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Impossible Travel in PalestineDate:
Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:52:18 +0000

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last update - 17:27 19/01/2007
Impossible travel
By Amira Hass

All the promises to relax restrictions in the West Bank have obscured the true picture. A few roadblocks have been removed, but the following prohibitions have remained in place. (This information was gathered by Haaretz, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and Machsom Watch)

Standing prohibitions

* Palestinians from the Gaza Strip are forbidden to stay in the West Bank.

* Palestinians are forbidden to enter East Jerusalem.

* West Bank Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Gaza Strip through the Erez crossing.

* Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Jordan Valley.

* Palestinians are forbidden to enter villages, lands, towns and neighborhoods along the "seam line" between the separation fence and the Green Line (some 10 percent of the West Bank).

* Palestinians who are not residents of the villages Beit Furik and Beit Dajan in the Nablus area, and Ramadin, south of Hebron, are forbidden entry.

* Palestinians are forbidden to enter the settlements' area (even if their lands are inside the settlements' built area).

* Palestinians are forbidden to enter Nablus in a vehicle.

* Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are forbidden to enter area A (Palestinian towns in the West Bank).

* Gaza Strip residents are forbidden to enter the West Bank via the Allenby crossing.

* Palestinians are forbidden to travel abroad via Ben-Gurion Airport.

* Children under age 16 are forbidden to leave Nabus without an original birth certificate and parental escort.

* Palestinians with permits to enter Israel are forbidden to enter through the crossings used by Israelis and tourists.

* Gaza residents are forbidden to establish residency in the West Bank.

* West Bank residents are forbidden to establish residency in the Jordan valley, seam line communities or the villages of Beit Furik and Beit Dajan.

* Palestinians are forbidden to transfer merchandise and cargo through internal West Bank checkpoints.


__________________________




Periodic prohibitions

* Residents of certain parts of the West Bank are forbidden to travel to the rest of the West Bank.

* People of a certain age group - mainly men from the age of 16 to 30, 35 or 40 - are forbidden to leave the areas where they reside (usually Nablus and other cities in the northern West Bank).

* Private cars may not pass the Swahara-Abu Dis checkpoint (which separates the northern and southern West Bank). This was canceled for the first time two weeks ago under the easing of restrictions.


__________________________




Travel permits required

* A magnetic card (intended for entrance to Israel, but eases the passage through checkpoints within the West Bank).

* A work permit for Israel (the employer must come to the civil administration offices and apply for one).

* A permit for medical treatment in Israel and Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem (The applicant must produce an invitation from the hospital, his complete medical background and proof that the treatment he is seeking cannot be provided in the occupied territories).

* A travel permit to pass through Jordan valley checkpoints.

* A merchant's permit to transfer goods.

* A permit to farm along the seam line requires a form from the land registry office, a title deed, and proof of first-degree relations to the registered property owner.

* Entry permit for the seam line (for relatives, medical teams, construction workers, etc. Those with permits must enter and leave via the same crossing even if it is far away or closing early).

* Permits to pass from Gaza, through Israel to the West Bank.

* A birth certificate for children under 16.

* A long-standing resident identity card for those who live in seam-line enclaves.


__________________________




Checkpoints and barriers

* There were 75 manned checkpoints in the West Bank as of January 9, 2007.

* There are on average 150 mobile checkpoints a week (as of September 2006).

* There are 446 obstacles placed between roads and villages, including concrete cubes, earth ramparts, 88 iron gates and 74 kilometers of fences along main roads.

* There are 83 iron gates along the separation fence, dividing lands from their owners. Only 25 of the gates open occasionally.


__________________________




* Road 90 (the Jordan Valley thoroughfare)

* Road 60, in the North (from the Shavei Shomron military base, west of Nablus and northward).

* Road 585 along the settlements Hermesh and Dotan.

* Road 557 west from the Taibeh-Tul Karm junction (the Green Line) to Anabta (excluding the residents of Shufa), and east from south of Nablus (the Hawara checkpoint) to the settlement Elon Moreh.

* Road 505, from Zatara (Nablus junction) to Ma'ale Efraim.

* Road 5, from the Barkan junction to the Green Line.

* Road 446, from Dir Balut junction to Road 5 (by the settlements Alei Zahav and Peduel).

* Roads 445 and 463 around the settlement Talmon, Dolev and Nahliel.

* Road 443, from Maccabim-Reut to Givat Ze'ev.

* Streets in the Old City of Hebron.

* Road 60, from the settlement of Otniel southward.

* Road 317, around the south Hebron Hills settlements.


__________________________




Travel time before 2000 versus today

Tul Karm-Nablus
Then: half an hour, at the most.
Now: At least an hour.

Tul Karm-Ramallah
Then: less than one hour.
Now: Two hours.

Beit Ur al-Fawqa-Ramallah
Then: 10 minutes.
Now: 45 minutes.

Katana/Beit Anan-Ramallah
Then: 15 minutes.
Now: One hour to 90 minutes.

Bir Naballah-Jerusalem
Then: seven minutes.
Now: One hour.

Katana-Jerusalem
Then: five minutes.
Now: "Nobody goes to Jerusalem anymore."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=815559

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Counterpunch.com: Zionism in the Cinema - Part One
From: My Son
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:20:51 +0000
January 18, 2007

Zionism in the Cinema - Part One
Return to Exodus
By LARRY PORTIS

The slogan “never again”, as used in relation to the Nazi genocides during the Second World War, and those which have succeeded, seems empty when we consider the ethnic cleansing carried out in Palestine after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and after the Israeli occupation of the remains of historical Palestine beginning in June 1967. How can the “Western democracies” continue to participate in the genocidal punishment of a population while proclaiming the purest of intentions? One of the reasons is the power of Zionist propaganda over those who lack alternative information and the political fear and hypocrisy that it can inspire in those who understand what is happening. Of the modern means of communication and the formation of consciousness, the cinema is pre-eminent and, in the case of the Zionist state of Israel, one film in particular has been remarkably influential.

Produced and directed by Otto Preminger, Exodus was released in 1960, and had enormous success. In evaluating this success, we are helped by the release in 2002 of another film, Kedma, directed by Amos Gitaï, and, to a lesser extent by Elie Chouraki’s film, O Jerusalem, released in Fall, 2006. The first two films treat the same subject—the clandestine arrival of Jewish refugees in Palestine in 1947 in the midst of armed conflict. This was the eve of the partition of Palestine, proposed by the United Nations Organization but rejected by the non-Jewish (or, rather, non-Zionist) population and states of the entire eastern Mediterranean region. Following the British announcement of their withdrawal from the protectorate established in 1920 by the mandate system of the treaty of Versailles, the stage was set for a defining event of the short, brutal twentieth century: the creation of the state of Israel and the population transfers and ethnic conflicts that accompanied it.

Comparison of the two films, both in terms of their genesis as artistic creations and as political statements, elucidates aspects of an interesting process of ideological formation. Seen as depictions of the birth of the Israeli nation, the two films are extremely different. Exodus is a glorification of a certain type of leadership, at a certain level of decision-making. It works only at the level of strategic and tactical Zionist command within Palestine, immediately before, during and after the war, for the creation of the state of Israel. The film is discreet in its treatment of international diplomacy. Although decisions of the British military administration are implicitly criticized in the film, such criticism is not allowed to call into question Britain itself as an actor on the international stage. When either the British or the United-Statesians (and the French and Italians) are referred to, it is always as individuals, not representatives of overall national sentiments.

In Kedma, Amos Gitaï was concerned to present an historical situation by depicting a single incident, the origins of which are not explained directly and, in the course of which, individuals are shown to be subordinate to developments over which they have no real control. The incident in question is the illegal arrival of a ship, “Kedma,” on the coast of Palestine.

There is an important qualification to make before any attempt to compare these films. The problem is that discussing the narrative content of Preminger's film Exodus would not be legitimate without speaking of Exodus the novel, written by Leon Uris. Not only were both film and novel tremendous commercial successes, they were conceived of as the two indispensable axes of a single project.

It was Dore Schary, a top executive at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) who suggested the idea for the book to Leon Uris. As Kathleen Christison explains, (www.counterpunch.org/kchristison0715.ht) the whole project « began with a prominent public-relations consultant who in the early 1950s decided that the United States was too apathetic about Israel's struggle for survival and recognition. » Thanks to Schary, Uris received a contract from Doubleday and went to Israel and Cyprus where he carried out extensive research. The book was published in September, 1958. It was first re-printed in October the following year. By 1964, it had gone through 30 printings. This success was undoubtedly helped by the film's release in 1960, but not entirely, as Uris's novel was a book-of-the-month club selection in September 1959 (which perhaps explains the first re-printing).

The film was to be made by MGM. But when the time came, the studio hesitated. The project was perhaps too political for the big producers. It was then that Otto Preminger bought the screen rights from MGM. He produced and directed the film, featuring an all-star cast including Paul Newman, Eva Marie-Saint, Lee J. Cobb, Sal Mineo, Peter Lawford and other box-office draws of the moment. The film also benefited from a lavish production in “superpanavision 70” after having been filmed on location. The music was composed by Ernest Gold, for which he received an Academy Award for the best music score of 1960. The screenplay was written by Dalton Trumbo. In spite of its length—three and a half hours—the film was a tremendous popular and critical success.

It is noteworthy that the release of Exodus the film in 1960 indicates that its production began upon Exodus the book's publication. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose a degree of coordination, in keeping with the origins of the project.

In short, it was a major operation that brilliantly succeeded. It has been estimated that in excess of 20 million people have read the novel, and that hundreds of millions have seen the film. Not only was this success a financial bonanza, its political impact has been equally considerable. There can be little doubt that Exodus the film has been one of the most important influences on Western perceptions and understanding of the hostilities between the Israeli state and the Palestinian people. So let us return to the message communicated by this film, in attempting to gage its role in ideological formation.

Exodus is the story of the Exodus 1947, a ship purchased in the United States and used to transport 4,500 Jewish refugees to Palestine. In reality, the novel and film take great liberties with the original story. Intercepted by the British authorities in the port of Haïfa, the real-life refugees were taken to the French port of Sête, where they were held, becoming the object of intense Zionist agitation and propaganda. Eventually they were transported to Germany and held temporarily in transit camps. Although this incident was used by Uris as the point of departure for his novel, the book is a work of fiction. Not only were the characters invented, the events did not correspond to reality except in the most general way.

In Uris' narrative, an intercepted ship (not named “Exodus”) is intercepted on the high sea and taken to Cyprus where the passengers are put in camps. Representatives of the Haganah, the secret Jewish army in Palestine, arrive secretly in Cyprus in order to care for, educate and mobilize the refugees. The agent-in-chief is Ari Ben Canaan, played by Paul Newman. Ben Canaan is the son of Barak Ben Canaan, prominent leader of the Yishuv, the Jewish, Zionist community in Palestine.

Tricking the British with great intelligence and audacity, Ari Ben Canaan arranges for the arrival of a ship purchased in the United States, on which he places 600 Jewish refugee children—orphans from the Nazi extermination camps and elsewhere. Once the children are on the ship, Ben Canaan names the ship the “Exodus”, and runs up the Zionist flag. He then informs the British authorities that, if the ship is not allowed to depart for Palestine, it will be blown up with all aboard.

Before having organized this potential suicide bombing (of himself, the Haganah agents and the 600 children), Ben Canaan has met Kitty Fremont, an American nurse who has become fond of the children and, it must be said, of Ari Ben Canaan. This love interest is carefully intertwined with the major theme: the inexorable need and will of the Jewish people to occupy the soil of Palestine.

As might be expected, the British give in. After some discussion between a clearly anti-Semitic officer and those more troubled by the plight of the refugees, the ship is allowed to depart for Palestine. It arrives just before the vote of the United Nations Organization recommending the partition of Palestine between the Jewish and non-Jewish populations. As the partition is refused by the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states, war breaks out and the characters all join the ultimately successful effort against what are described as over-whelming odds. Even Kitty and Major Sutherland, the British officer who tipped the balance in favor of releasing the “Exodus,” join the fight.

Sutherland’s participation, representing the defection of a British imperialist to the Zionist cause, is particularly symbolic. Why did Sutherland jeopardize his position and reputation, and then resign from the army? His humanitarianism was forged by the fact that he had seen the Nazi extermination camps when Germany was liberated and, more troubling, his mother was Jewish, although converted to the Church of England. Sutherland has had a belated identity crisis that led him, too, to establish himself in the nascent Israel.

The other major characters in the film similarly represent the “return” of Jewish people to their “promised land.” For example, Karen, the young girl who Kitty would like to adopt and take to the United States, is a German Jew who was saved by placement in a Danish family during the war. Karen will elect to stay with her people, in spite of her affection for Kitty. Karen is also attached to Dov Landau, a fellow refugee, a 17 year-old survivor of the Warsaw ghetto and death camps. Once in Palestine, Dov joins a Zionist terrorist organization (based on the Irgun) and, in the book and film (but not, of course, in reality), places a bomb in the wing of King David Hotel housing the British Command, causing considerable loss of life.

The role of human agency, leadership and the nature of decision-making, are a dimension of Exodus that is particularly revealing of the propagandistic intent of the film. Most noteworthy is the fact that all the major characters are presented as exceptional people, and all are Jewish, with the exception of Kitty. However, it is not as individuals that the protagonists of the film are important, but rather as representatives of the Jewish people.

It is in this respect, in its effort to portray Jewishness as a special human condition distinguishing Jews and Jewish culture from others, that Exodus is at its most didactic. Ari Ben Canaan is clearly a superior being, but he merely represents the Jewish people. They are, collectively, just as strong, resourceful and determined as Ari. This positive image is highlighted by the portrayal of other ethnic groupings present in the film. The British, for example, are seen as, at best, divided and, at their worst, as degenerate products of national decay and imperialistic racism.

The most striking contrast to the collective solidarity, intellectual brilliance, and awesome courage of the Jews is offered by the “Arabs.” In spite of their greater numbers, the culture and character of the Arabs show them to be clearly inferior. Ari, who is a “sabra”—a Jewish person born in Palestine—and, as a consequence, understands the Arab character, knows that they cannot compete with determined Jews. “You turn 400 Arabs loose,” he says, and “they will run in 400 different directions.” This assessment of the emotional and intellectual self-possession of the Arabs was made prior to the spectacular jailbreak at Acre prison. The very indiscipline of the Arabs would cover the escape of the determined Zionists.

The Arab leaders are equally incapable of effective action, as they are essentially self-interested and uncaring about their own people. In the end, it is this lack of tolerance and human sympathy in the non-Jews that most distinguishes Jews and Arabs. In Exodus the novel, Arabs are consistently, explicitly, and exclusively, described as lazy and shiftless, dirty and deceitful. They have become dependant upon the Jews, and hate them for it. In Exodus the film, however, this characterization is not nearly as insisted upon, at least not in the dialogue. Still, the way they are portrayed on the screen inspires fear and distrust.

To be continued tomorrow.

Larry Portis is a professor of American Studies at Montpellier University in France. He an be reached at larry.portis@univ-montp3.fr

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

From: My son
Subject: The Forward: The Case for Carter by Yossi Beilin Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:29:58 +0000
The Case for Carter
Opinion

Yossi Beilin | Tue. Jan 16, 2007

Looking at the controversy that has erupted over former President Jimmy Carter’s book, “ Palestine : Peace Not Apartheid,” I have to say I am a little envious — envious of a national culture in which a book, or just a book title, can stir such a debate.

I cannot recall when the publication of a book has generated such a debate in Israel . And even though we are talking here about a book that was published in the United States and has yet to be translated into Hebrew, the quiet way in which “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” has been received in Israel is nevertheless noteworthy, not least because it is Israel itself that is the object of Carter’s opprobrium.

Part of the explanation for why Carter’s book did not set off any public outcry in Israel lies in the difference in literary culture. For better or worse — and I, for one, certainly think that it is for worse — books just don’t matter here in the way they still do elsewhere. Yet perhaps a larger part of the explanation lies with the difference in political culture, and with local sensitivities (or perhaps insensitivities) to language and moral tone.

It is not that Israelis are indifferent to what is said about them, but the threshold of what passes as acceptable here is apparently much higher than it is with Israel ’s friends in the United States . In the case of this particular book, the harsh words that Carter reserves for Israel are simply not as jarring to Israeli ears, which have grown used to such language, especially with respect to the occupation.

In other words, what Carter says in his book about the Israeli occupation and our treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories — and perhaps no less important, how he says it — is entirely harmonious with the kind of criticism that Israelis themselves voice about their own country. There is nothing in the criticism that Carter has for Israel that has not been said by Israelis themselves.

Of course, Carter is not just another media pundit or a leftist Israeli. A former president of the United States and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, he has been one of the world’s most accomplished statesmen in the past three decades, a public figure of enormous moral clout.

His words weigh heavier than those of others, and his actions make a difference in the real sense of the term.

In the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, moreover, Carter has secured his place in history as the man who brokered the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab nation. The Camp David summit he convened in September 1978, which resulted in the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt , was a historical watershed for the entire region. It inaugurated the Arab-Israeli peace process, without which the Oslo peace process would not have been possible, nor the 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan .

In light of the failure of the second Camp David summit of July 2000, Carter’s successful mediation between such starkly different leaders as Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat is all the more impressive, and his achievement — which was a truly personal achievement — all the more remarkable.

Every Israeli, and every Jew to whom the destiny of Israel is important, is indebted to Carter for breaking the ring of hostility that had choked Israel for more than 30 years. No American president before him had dedicated himself so fully to the cause of Israel ’s peace and security, and, with the exception of Bill Clinton, no American president has done so since.

This is why the publication of Carter’s recent book, and perhaps more than anything else, the title it bears, has pained so many people. And I must admit that, on some deeply felt level, the title of the book has strained my heart, too. Harsh and awful as the conditions are in the West Bank, the suggestion that Israel is conducting a policy of apartheid in the occupied territories is simply unacceptable to me.

But is this what Carter is saying? I have read his book, and I could not help but agree — however agonizingly so — with most if its contents. Where I disagreed was mostly with the choice of language, including his choice of the word “apartheid.”

But if we are to be fair, and as any reading of the book makes clear, Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” is first and foremost metaphorical. Underlying Israel ’s policy in the West Bank , he argues, is not a racist ideology but rather a nationalist drive for the acquisition of land. The resulting violence, and the segregationist policies that shape life in the West Bank , are the ill-intended consequences of that drive.

Of course, there is no appropriate term in the political lexicon for what we in Israel are doing in the occupied territories. “Occupation” is too antiseptic a term, and does not capture the social, cultural and humanitarian dimensions of our actions. Given the Palestinians’ role in the impasse at which we have arrived, to say nothing of Arab states and, historically speaking, of the superpowers themselves, I would describe the reality of occupation as a march of folly — an Israeli one, certainly, but not exclusively so.

But if we are to read Carter’s book for what it is, I think we would find in it an impassioned personal narrative of an American former president who is reflecting on the direction in which Israel and Palestine may be going if they fail to reach agreement soon. Somewhere down the line — and symbolically speaking, that line may be crossed the day that a minority of Jews will rule a majority of Palestinians west of the Jordan River — the destructive nature of occupation will turn Israel into a pariah state, not unlike South Africa under apartheid.

In this sense, “ Palestine : Peace Not Apartheid” is a stark warning to both Israelis and Palestinians of the choice they must make. That choice is between peace and apartheid, for the absence of one may well mean the other. Carter’s choice is clearly peace, and, for all its disquieting language, the book he has written is sustained by the hope that we choose peace, as well.

Yossi Beilin, a member of the Knesset, is chairman of the Meretz-Yahad Party.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help

Monday, January 15, 2007

Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:32 AM
Subject: Carter's book



Please sign this petition and circulate:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Amazon07/petition.html


More information on the Book:
http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=3026




Nabil Mohamad
ADC Organizing Department
Washington, DC
www.adc.org

Saturday, January 13, 2007

From: My son
Subject: Al Ahram Weekly Mustafa Barghouti Once Bitten
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:48:10 +0000
Once bitten
A state with temporary borders would spell the end of the Palestinian cause and rights, writes Mustafa Barghouti*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every now and then it is useful to take a closer look at the nature of the ongoing struggle in Palestine, for it is easy to miss the forest for the trees. The general idea is simple. The Palestinians are fighting for a fully independent state on all the land occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and demanding recognition of the rights of Palestinian refugees. Meanwhile, Israel, which wants to create a system of apartheid and domination, is trying to get the Palestinians to accept a state with temporary borders, minus Jerusalem and other areas, and minus independence. Israel's recent decision to build a new settlement in the Jordan Valley is a case in point.

Shall we have a comprehensive and final solution to the conflict, or a temporary and interim one similar to that of the Oslo Accords? This is the big question facing the Palestinians today. A long-term transitional deal is what Israel wants. The Israelis want to force the Palestinians to give up large segments of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and abandon refugee rights as part of an interim solution. But such a solution is likely to be permanent, not temporary.

Also, Israel wants the Palestinian Authority to remain ineffective and shorn of sovereignty. It wants the authority to act as Israel's bodyguard while Israel maintains all economic, political and security power.

Israel is pushing for an interim solution because it doesn't want the Palestinians to benefit from opportunities the US debacle in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East has created. With the Baker-Hamilton report calling for a solution to the Palestinian problem and with international community increasingly critical of Israel's policies, the tide is turning. Who would have imagined that a former US president, Jimmy Carter, would conclude that apartheid is worse in Palestine than it ever was in South Africa? The pressure on Israel is mounting, as is evident in the Spanish-French-Italian call for an international conference and a final settlement of the conflict. Europe wants a lasting solution to the Palestinian issue, and Israel -- fully cognizant -- is buying time.

Israel is trying to weaken the drive for genuine peace in the Middle East. In particular, it is trying to stop US officials from altering their policy in a way that could be beneficial to the Palestinians. And the Israelis are yet again using the Palestinians to avoid the consequences of a just and comprehensive settlement to the 40-year-old conflict.

Here is what Israel is doing. First, Israel is trying to portray the Palestinian scene as part of a battle between good and evil, a battle between those who belong to the so-called "Axis of Evil" and those described as moderates.

Second, Israel is trying to portray the conflict between Fatah and Hamas as a power struggle over who controls the occupied territories. The debate has thus been shifted to the nature and composition of government and to the terms under which Israel and other international parties would approve of the Palestinian government. This mustn't go on. The Palestinians need a unified national command, one that is capable of managing the conflict and breaking the siege.

Third, Israel is trying to get Fatah and Hamas to haggle, through international brokers, over partial and interim solutions. This also must stop. Fatah and Hamas should discuss their differences over the final peace settlement rather than waste their time on who is to negotiate a partial deal. It is essential for all Palestinian parties to denounce any partial deals and never accept a state with temporary borders.

The Palestinians need a unified position and strategy. They need a unified command, something that has been missing for almost three decades now. The last thing the Palestinians need is for domestic rivalries to distract them from managing the conflict. Let's keep in mind that political plurality can be a blessing or a curse. It would be a blessing if the Palestinians insist on a comprehensive solution. And it would be a curse if divisions weaken our negotiating position.

We need a government of national unity and we need it soon. More importantly, we need a unified command that can organise and coordinate action among the three components of the Palestinian people: those living outside Palestine; those living in the occupied territories; and those living in Israel, who are currently 22 per cent of the Palestinian population.

Opinion polls suggest that a majority of Palestinians and Israelis want a comprehensive solution. But the so-called Israeli peace movement has become inactive since talks shifted to partial and interim solutions. Israel must come to the realisation that apartheid is a non-starter and that the only way ahead is that of comprehensive peace. We've tried Oslo once. Let's not try it again.

* The writer is a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative.


© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/827/op9.ht


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?

Monday, January 01, 2007

Friends,

To mark the tragic death of the 3000th US military person in Iraq.

This event is supported by several local groups:

From a Friend:

"Hello darkness, my old friend

I've come to talk with you again

Because a vision softly creeping

Left its seeds while I was sleeping

And the vision that was planted in my brain

Still remains

Within the sound of silence."

Light a candle in that darkness

Break the silence.

"But my words, like silent raindrops fell

And echoed

In the wells of silence."

Join us Tuesday, Jan 2nd on the Memorial Bridge from 5 to 7 p.m. on the
Virginia side of the Memorial Bridge. Bring candles, signs and props. The
Virginia entrance to the Memorial Bridge is a particularly busy and
dangerous intersection. Please cross the street in designated areas. You
can take the metro to Arlington Cemetery. The vigil is about 4 blocks
away. The last metro leaves Arlington Cemetery by 6:50 pm. The Foggy
Bottom
Metro is about a mile away. There is usually plenty of parking on Ohio
Drive along the river in DC.

Above lyrics by Simon & Garfunkel

This war may never end unless more of us show up. Hell, it may never end
even if we do. Make it a new year of resistance!

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/ fromthefield/ 219522/116765898 292.htm